Talk:Allopathic medicine/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A little glitzy...

It seems to me that the intro reads a little un-NPOV, like someone had a grudge to bear. Even if this is the case for the article, it doesn't read very encyclopedic, so I'm putting a magazine template. Rhetth 02:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Added reference to allopathic MD schools and ACGME. -Sparaig 09:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • With thanks from the American Medical Association for your input.

I agree with the other comments, this article appears to have an axe to grind and underplays the fact that the major associations representing "conventional medicine" in the U.S. universally and unashamedly embrace the term "allopathic medicine" (primarily to distinguish itself from ostopathic medicine). Maybe the term has a controversal heritage, but today it's simply a useful adjective to refer to MDs specifically when contrasting them with DOs. Having said that I don't see myself as personally qualified to correct this. XKL 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is important not only doctors opinion but for the general public to understand this term. I would say that this article may clarify an important content of the difference in use, therefore people may interpret it under the different context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.90.150.114 (talk • contribs).

Call Modern Western Medicine

No doubt the term '''Allopathy''' is given by the founder of Homoeopathy Dr. CFS Hahnemann of Germany. But today Allopathy is also known Modern Western Medicine. I think , this could be a good and appealing title for Allopathy. user:debbe, 30 April 2007, 07:25 PM IST

Revamping this article

This article needs to be revamped. The article lacks a neutral point of view. There is some controversy here that needs to be addressed. My concern is how much to emphasize the controversial aspect of the term. As it stands now, this article seems to be an article about the controvery surrounding the term, but not about the term itself. Main points:

• The word allopathic medicine has an "everyday," current usage. The main function the term serves is to differentiate between osteopathic and non-osteopathic medical schools/degrees/practices. The only context in which the term is regularly used is in a discussion of osteopathic medical schools, osteopathic associations, etc. Outside of contexts where this differentiation is being made, the term is rarely used. Instead, one would simply say "medicine" or perhaps "conventional medicine" - though the term "conventional" medicine also has unintended connotations. Other possible terms to consider are "clinical medicine" or "evidence-based" medicine. Unfortunely, none of these terms comes close to the same functional meaning as "allopathic medicine." Further, none of these terms as satisfactory since Osteopathic medical schools now teach the same traditional, conventional, evidence-based medicine as allopathic schools.
• This modern, current usage carries no-negative connotation. It simply serves a function. The main evidence I think of that supports this several organizations which represent the type of medicine to which the term refers, use is to describe themselves, as User: XKL noted.

• The word has an original usage which carried a perjorative message. This is part of the term history. This should be noted.

Questions/Problems, input requested.

• To propery address the controvery surrounding the term allopathic requires a discussion of the history of the conflictling schools of medicine; without this context the discussion is incomplete. This is especially important since the term took on new significance during each historical period: (please amend w/ suggestions as you see fit)
  • 19th century America - osteopathy, homeopathy, allopathy - conflicts over the basic model of medical therapy. Advent of clinical medicine which osteopathy and allopathy embrace while homeopathy rejects.
  • 20th century America - osteopathy v allopathy - conflicts over licensure, practice rights, accredidation. California in ’68: AOA v AMA, etc. The advent of "evidence-based" medicine.
  • 21st century America - osteopathy and allopathy differences blur. The advent of "alternative medicine" and "complementary medicine" further changes the meaning of both terms.
• A second major problem is the regional issue. As far as I know, the term "allopathic" is only commonly used in the United States. Add to this the fact that "Osteopathy" and "Osteopathic medicine" means something entirely different in all of the non-US world. Needs to be addressed.
• ”Osteopathic medicine" the branch of medicine which "allopathic" seems to exist to differntiate from, also has a questionable meaning. Today, all Osteopathic medical schools embrace clinical, evidence-based, conventional medicine. Osteopathic medical students take the same national exams (MCAT, USMLE) and are the vast majoity are trained in allopathic resident training programs. The majority of Osteopathic physicians in America do not practice any form of Osteopathic manipulation. Does this suggest that Osteopathic medicine includes all of allopathic medicine but adds the option of manipulation? Where does that leave the term allopathic?

In my experience (I attend as Osteopathic medical school), the cirricula of osteopathic and allopathic medical schools are functionally identical, the one exception to this being the additional material on "Osteopathic medical theory and manipulation." But this is additional material, not given at the expense of conventional medicine. This still leaves the question of what actually is the difference, and what does the term allopath even mean, other than non-Osteopathic.

Suggestions in the search for a statisfying, accurate approximation of term's funtional meaning

• Emphasizing the fact that a greater percentage of US osteopaths go into primary care, while a greater percentage of allopaths go into a specialty medical field.
• Emphasizing that Osteopathic/Allopathic refers to two education routes with same destination, professional "licensure" as a medical doctor. Compare to other circumstances where two similar, yet distinct degrees lead to same licensure, i.e. PsyD and a PhD can lead to a license in psychology.
• Somehow addressing the difficult to document, yet somehow intuitively-important notion that osteopathic/allopathic refers to the perception of an "attitude" or an openess towards alternative/complementary medical practices. Osteopaths being open to non-evidence based therapies, in addition to conventional ones. The perception that allopaths are less-so.
• Somehow address that there is a slow, but clear convergence in all remaining differnces between the two previously disimilar branches of medicine. Cite examples of allopathic institutions (Harvard medical school) teaching Osteopathic principles/manipulation. More than anything, the over-emphasis on the controversial nature of the term allpathic obscures this important trend. The meaning of the term allopath is clearly in flux. One might say it is becoming less meaningful, or more limited. User: OsteopathicFreak 24 May 2007

When the dictionaries reflect what you claim is the "current" meaning, this article should reflect that fact. You need references to back up your claims, otherwise it's all just original research. - Nunh-huh 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Allopathic Medicine

This is a dispute about what the introductory section for the entry "allopathic medicine." 25 May 2007 There are two versions of the intro section:

Allopathy or Allopathic medicine (from Gr. allos, other, and pathos, suffering) is the name given by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy,[1] to the methods of his medical foes. The term is sometimes used today to refer to conventional medicine. The correct meaning and use of the term is a point of contention, even among authorities on the subject.

or

The terms Allopathy or Allopathic medicine refers to the treatment of disease using conventional medical therapies, as opposed the use of alternative medical or non-conventional therapies. The meaning and controversy surrounding the term can be traced to its original usage during a contentious, 19th-century debate between practioners of homeopathic, osteopathic and allopathic medicine. (see history of term) In modern times, "allopathic" is used infrequently to refer to a specific type or field of medicine, rather the American Medical Association and the National Residency Matching Program[1] use the term to refer to the schools and residency training programs which they govern, e.g. an allopathic medical student. Thus, the term distiguishes these schools and programs from those that receive accredidation by the American Osteopathic Association.

25 May 2007 User:OsteopathicFreak

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The word allopathic medicine has an "everyday," current usage. This modern, current usage carries no-negative connotation. It simply serves a function. The main evidence I think of that supports this several organizations which represent the type of medicine to which the term refers, use is to describe themselves, as User:XKL noted. User:OsteopathicFreak
• The word has an original usage which carried a perjorative message. This is part of the term history. This should be noted. User:OsteopathicFreak
• When the dictionaries reflect what you claim is the "current" meaning, this article should reflect that fact. You need references to back up your claims, otherwise it's all just original research. - User:Nunh-huh 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

You can't elevate Wikipedian's thoughts or observations on what the primary meaning of a word is over that given by standard reference works - in this case, published, reputable dictionaries. Finding some organization using it in a given way on the Internet is, perhaps, evidence that that meaning of the word is headed towards acceptance, but until it's so reported by dictionaries, it's original research and crystal-ball gazing to say so. No dictionary reports the meaning you want to make primary as the primary meaning. - Nunh-huh 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What standard reference works do not define it similarly to the definition given? The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term as "ordinary or traditional medical practice." Stedman's medical dictionary does the same. In the UK, the term seems to be most often used to distiguish conventional medicine from homeopathic medicine. In the US, the term seems to be used most often to distiguish between conventional medicine and osteopathic medicine. In either case, it seems to mean "conventional" or "traditional" medicine. The number of publications and organizations that use it in this way, to describe themselves, are literally too numerous to cite. I listed two that I thought were sufficient to establish the meaning and usage of the term. Numerous other source are discussed in the article. Does it not make sense to at least define the term, say how its used and who uses it, currently? Then have a discussion of the term's origins?OsteopathicFreak 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED gives such a definition, but not as the primary definition. So your impression of how it's used currently differs from that of the OED. What makes sense is to define the word with its primary definition, and give subsidiary definitions later. And it makes perfect sense to describe the origins of the word chronologically, first meanings first. - Nunh-huh 21:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there's a disagreement here, hence the RfC. I'll let others observations/comments guide the organization of this article. Stepping back for a while. OsteopathicFreak 20:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you're seeing a different Stedman's than I. All I see for allopathy is "A therapeutic system in which a disease is treated by producing a second condition that is incompatible with or antagonistic to the first. syn: heteropathy 2 Etymology: allo- + G. [pathos,] suffering " - Nunh-huh 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Need to split "allopathy" from "allopathic medicine." Similar distinction as "Osteopathy" and "Osteopathic medicine."OsteopathicFreak 04:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OsteopathicFreak you are wasting your time on here. Even though major allpathic institutions (AMA, ACGME, and AAMC) refer to what they do as allopathic medicine (examples from their publications have been supplied in the article) and even though nearly every medical dictionary cited defines allopathic medicine as mainstream medicine, Nunh-huh is going to insist that all of the sources are wrong and he is right. I, and many others before me, have been through this with him. A charitable reading of the situation would be that he is from a different age in medicine when the term was less common. All I know is that when I took the MCAT I had to check the box that said I was applying to allopathic medical schools. He is the only person I have ever heard object to this, and believe me--he is going to continue to object (even in the face of the ACGME, the AMA, the AAMC, etc.). But it doesn't really matter. In the end, the AMA, the ACGME, and the AAMC will continue to describe it as allopathic, even if he objects. Donaldal 04:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I plead guilty to thinking that history didn't begin with Donaldal's first memories. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Allopathic medicine → Allopathy — This article mostly pertains to the term allopathy. By changing the name of the article, the focus will shift from defining conventional medicine as allopathic to what allopathy means. This should alleviate some of the controversy and arguments indicated in the discussion above. Conventional medicine can be discussed in another article (maybe Medical education), and differences between MD and DO can be discussed in Medical education in the United States, Doctor of Medicine, and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. —Scott Alter 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose- Google search shows "allopathic medicine" to be more widely used; I believe this will be more commonly searched for and less confusing. —LactoseTI^T 08:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The purpose of this rename would be to complement the osteopathy article, assuming osteopathic medicine will be renamed "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine". Please see comments at Talk:Osteopathic medicine#Requested move, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical education, and Talk:Medical education in the United States#Split Medical school into Medical school in the United States as to the changes I would like to make. I believe that if I make these changes, everything will be much more clear. If there aren't any other suggestions, I will go ahead and rename the articles soon. My changes are mostly of article names and not content. They could always be moved back if someone has another idea. I think some people might not understand how I envision the medical education articles, but I think everything will end up for the better. --Scott Alter 16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the equation of M.D. with "allopath" is not appropriate, and not for the better. - Nunh-huh 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

M.D. would not be equated with allopath any more than it is now. If anything, it would be more separated. By renaming [allopathic medicine]] to "allopathy", the focus shifts from the type of medicine practiced (called allopathic medicine by some, who may assume that MDs practice this) to the term allopathy (which is what the article is currently about). The term "allopath" would not be used to described an MD, as I do not believe it is used now. I am only proposing to rename the article so that the title matches the content. The article is about the term allopathy, rather than what "allopathic medicine" is (or whatever you call allopathic medicine - conventional, traditional, non-osteopathic, etc). --Scott Alter 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Conventional or traditional is far less tendentious than "allopathic". There are journal articles that I have cited on Wikipedia previously (I'll find them again if need be) that document the sordid origins of the term allopathy, and the remaining opposition by many to the use of term. I think you all are giving User:Nunh-huh too hard of a time here; one can ignore the controversy, but that does not make it cease to exist, or have existed. Antelan ^talk 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood the re-organizational plan Scottalter has outlined, which seemed to me to want to memorialize the "osteopathic/non-osteopathic" as "osteopathic/allopathic". He now seems to say that is not his intent, and I would welcome clarification on that point. It also seems he wants to make an artificial, and therefore necessarily idiosyncratic, distinction between "allopathy" and "allopathic medicine", which are synonyms. I suspect that distinction will confuse rather than enlighten our readers. - Nunh-huh 03:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was not clear. The only thing I want to do is make a direct comparison between are the M.D. and D.O. degrees. Not on allopathic and osteopathic. This is why I would like to rename "Osteopathic medicine" to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine". I would also like to rename "allopathic medicine" to "allopathy". My reason for this is partially because of the controversy over the word allopath. Regardless of the content, having a phrase containing the word medicine in the title makes the article seem like it is about the actual type of medicine. The "allopathic medicine" article is almost entirely discussing the origin and usage of the word allopath, and not about non-osteopathic medicine (called allopathic by some). Therefore, I believe "allopathy" is a better title for the article than "allopathic medicine". The non-osteopathic (allopathic) medicine is explained in medicine and all other medical articles. I do not want to separate allopathy and allopathic medicine into separate articles. They are the same thing, which would confuse everyone. This is not my intent. To lessen confusion, I do want only one osteopathy/osteopathic medicine article. If "Osteopathic medicine" is renamed to "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine", then this will accomplish that goal. --Scott Alter 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scott, if the following isn't a correct interpretation of your goals, can you copy and update it to explain what your aim is? I'm hoping a delineated layout like this will help clarify what you're working for.

Allopathy

An article about the term allopathy, its pejorative origins, and its contradistinction to homeopathic medicine, its non-pejorative uses (etc.)

Doctor of medicine

An article about the title and the attributes of those who possess it

Osteopathy

An article about the term and its usage in and out of the USA

Doctor of osteopathic medicine

An article about the title and the attributes of those who possess it

Thanks, Antelan ^talk 05:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, what you outlined is a good description of what I would like to do. It is also basically what the current articles are about, just with their current names. This can be accomplished by performing 2 steps:

1. Rename Osteopathic medicine → Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (and possibly move/copy some content to osteopathy)
2. Rename Allopathic medicine → Allopathy

Doctor of Medicine and Osteopathy will remain as-is. --Scott Alter 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If the only question touching on this article is allopathic medicine vs. allopathy, they are synonyms and I don't care which is used. (I don't know why Scottalter prefers one over the other, but I have no objections to him moving it.) - Nunh-huh 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. I can't find a single use of the term "allopathy" outside of two contexts - 1. Criticisms of traditional medicine. 2. Criticisms of the use of the term "allopathic." I can find numerous examples of the phrase "allopathic medicine" by practitioners of traditional medicine in a neutral, non-derogatory sense, e.g. the NRMP uses it to describe graduates of non-osteopathic medical schools. I agree with Scott Alter that the article as it stands focuses on the controversy surrounding the use of the term. Though I oppose the move, I support anything that clarifies the confusion of this article. As it stands now, it misrepresents the topic, ignores the current usage of the term "allopathic" in favor of editorializing on the appropriateness of these terms.

It is clear that there are strongly held opinions on this topic. As I am new to Wikipedia, I'm not sure how these issue get resolved. From my point of view, these articles, the very way they are structured, all carry a clear Non-NPOV. This is similar to the "See Also Osteopathic Medical Schools" business from a while back. I'm not sure what evidence to offer to aid others in seeing this bias.

For the record, I feel that most of these distinctions are just nonsense. Discussions of this nature quickly devolve into such convoluted and legalistic jargon as to become almost meaningless. Nevertheless, the history is interesting and I think Wikipedia could do the topic justice. But I'm saddened that I don't really think that will happen in the face of an apparent commitment to a one-sided recounting of the history from a single point of view, to the exclusion of all others.

Note that Osteopathic medicine is not synonymous with Osteopathy. At least legally.OsteopathicFreak 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 08:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"MD residencies" and "traditional"

Hi - So I'm sorry if my edit was untoward. Here's my point. People are confused on this topic, let's shep some light on it, not obscure things. "Allopathic med schools" graduate MDs and "osteopathic med schools" graduate DOs, exclusively. This is in sharp contrast with "allopathic residencies" which train MDs and DOs. Almost half of DO grads go on to "allopathic" residencies.[2] And many "allopathic" residencies are also accredited by the AOA. So the residency is "allopathic" and "osteopathic" at the same time. Just think it might be misleading if you don't clarify this.

I think the problem is, "MD residencies" sounds like its for MDs. Are the DO residents who train in allopathic programs now allopaths? Are they now MDs? The whole thing is silly, of course.

Also the word "traditional" medical degree is a bit problematic, especially when you throw in the british comparison. In the US, osteopathic medicine degrees are just as "traditional" as allopathic. In Britain, an Osteopathic degree is something wholly different.OsteopathicFreak 07:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that allopathic residencies are open to M.D.'s and D.O.'s, the residency programs themselves are called allopathic. As this is verifiable and attributed, I'm not sure why it's a problem.

With regards to your concern about the term "traditional" - both are not equally traditional. The M.D. precedes the D.O., and while both have the same rights under the law in the U.S., labeling the M.D. degree "traditional" - especially in this context, where it is not contrasted with D.O. but instead with homeopathy, and furthermore includes reference to the British system where you correctly note that osteopathic degrees are unlike the D.O. degree available in the United States - is appropriate. Antelan ^talk 11:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying. I'm just saying there's a lot of confusion out there, what these descriptions refer to is often misunderstood. This article is an opportunity to clarify the boundaries, and show how much overlap there is with the terms and how they are used. That's all. I really don't want this to be a DO/MD war. I just hoped the article could clear up some confusion. At this point, the article implies that "allopathic" is used by homeopaths in some special way. While all the references in the professional organization section are NOT referring to this usage at all. Clearly, the intent of the term by these organizations is to distinguish them from "Osteopathic" programs, in a non-derogatory sense.

Can't we present the Osteopathic/Allopathic distinction in this article with a NPOV? Since that is clearly the most common current usage of the term, a neutral one? Can't we somehow represent the truth that these terms describe two largely overlapping, completely equal branches of modern, conventional medicine - equal in their scopes of practice yet different in other ways? Perhaps listing some of those differences unique to allopathic medicine in this article?OsteopathicFreak 00:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be useful to state many of the things you've mentioned in this article. However, we have to do it in a way that makes sense to the reader. This discussion deserves its own brief paragraph; it is confusing to try to compress the discussion into the tail end of a long sentence about graduate medical education.

Also, I am not convinced that "[c]learly, the intent of the term by these organizations is to distinguish them from "Osteopathic" programs". I mean no offense, but I'd like to see some sort of historical discussion (in a text or a paper) to support that. I find it more likely a priori, knowing something of the history of the term, that the usage is to distinguish the programs from homeopathic/etc. programs. Then, the term osteopathic arose in contradistinction to allopathic. At any rate, one of us is probably right, and perhaps both of us are right to a degree, but we need sources to discover this; it's not intuitable.

Antelan ^talk 01:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The ACGME is trying to make sure the homeopaths know this program isn't for them? I FULLY support a thorough discussion of the history of the term, including all its controversial roots. But I really think it needs to be clarified what is meant when it is used now. And perhaps just as importantly, what it does not mean. How many sources/articles does one need to cite to demonstrate that the term is used to contradistinct from Osteopathic medical schools? And that this distinction (as with residencies) is often not exclusive of osteopathic docs, and that (at least in the US) the distinction is actually quite flexible? I'd be happy to compile a list of numerous articles and sources, but something tell me that wouldn't be enough somehow. OsteopathicFreak 02:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I agreed that this article should have a paragraph on the most common modern usage of the term (which, to my knowledge, is to distinguish M.D. from D.O.). I also said that we'd need evidence to support your or my claims regarding the reason that graduate medical programs call themselves allopathic. Antelan ^talk 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This statement - Also, I am not convinced that "[c]learly, the intent of the term by these organizations is to distinguish them from "Osteopathic" programs". You say you are not convinced. As far as I know, the term is used so frequently that I just assume its meaning is obvious, (perhaps I see it this way b/c I attend an Osteopathic school). But I guess that's not the case. User:Nunh-huh has expressed similar sentiments that using "allopathic" to contradistinct from "osetopathic" is incorrect. As far as I can see, that is exactly how it is used in the US, and with notable frequency. Certainly with greater frequency than any other usage that I can find.

Articles using the term allopathic, published by "non-Osteopathic specific" institutions. (there are thousands more)

American Medical Student Association: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

American Medical Association: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

New England Journal of Medicine: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

US Department of Health and Human Services: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Center for Disease Control (CDC): [25] [26] [27]

Johns Hopkins: [28] [29]

Harvard Medical School: [30]

UCSF: [31] [32]

Cleveland Clinic: [33]

Columbia Med: [34] [35]

Yale Med: [36]

World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [37] [38] [39]

Others: [40] [41]

I'm NOT suggesting that all these people are using the term correctly. I'm just saying they are using it to mean a particular thing, even if they are wrong according to some higher authority. In many cases (I won't say most, b/c I didn't actually count), its used side by side with the term "osteopathic." Its hard for me to swallow this the word is about drawing some distinction with homeopathy. OsteopathicFreak 22:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The contemporary usage of allopathic isn't in question. The resources that you found are interesting in their own right but are very broad, and don't speak to the specific question that I raised about the residency programs. At any rate, I think the article could use a paragraph about allo-osteo, as I've stated before. I don't see the battle that you see. Antelan ^talk 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

OsteopathicFreak, can you explain why you removed the statement about the fact that the term is controversial? Antelan ^talk 23:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a controversy/disagreement statement into the new section. I thought we could reserve the "current usage" section for actual dictionary definitions of the term "allopathic medicine" since that's what this article is about. Perhaps we need another article to explain allopathy. The "current usage" section was really broken up and disjointed. So I created a new section with a breakdown of each area that the term seems to be used in the US. We can discuss the usage within each context, since the context seems to play a role in how it is used. What do you think of this?OsteopathicFreak 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

So I overhauled this page. I tried to sort all the information into categories, to organize the different contexts in which the term is applicable, in a sequence that has some logical flow. The various usages of all these terms are somewhat overlapping and the old format obscured and/or exaggerated the distinctions being made. I really made an effort to include all controversies/critiques about this term, which are numerous to be sure. One needs a minimal amount of context to understand the arguments, i.e. you can't really understand the term allopathic medicine, without knowing a little about osteopathic medicine. I tired to source every statement that seemed original researchy. I hope this will satisfy everyone, or at least move the article in forward. I did almost nothing with the history section, which badly needs some lovin'.OsteopathicFreak 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While the content you contributed is entirely needed in Wikipedia, I'm not sure this article is the right place for it. It is mostly a comparison between allopathic vs osteopathic medicine, rather than a description of what allopathic medicine is. Perhaps this is better suited for a "Medicine in the United States" article. Allopathic medicine is world-wide, yet the new content is completely US-specific, which would be another reason for it to be in a different article. Also, I do not think articles on allopathic medicine or general medicine articles (such as Physician) should be in Category:Osteopathic medicine. If you want to have an osteopathic medicine category as a sub-category of Category:Medicine, maybe there should be Category:Allopathic medicine too. If there are only going to be a couple of articles in each of these categories, they might not be necessary at all. --Scott Alter 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Category:Osteopathic medicine even needed at all? It seems like it would be a duplicate of Category:Osteopathy. How about renaming Osteopathy to Osteopathic medicine? Outside of the U.S., is it improper to call "osteopathy" "osteopathic medicine"? If not, this rename might make more sense than keeping Osteopathy. --Scott Alter 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is improper to refer to osteopathy outside the US as osteopathic medicine. I know this sounds ridiculous to the uninitiated, but that's the truth. I'm sure many would take odds with this, but . . . formally, they are not the same. Osteopathy outside the US does not incorporate clinical, conventional, evidence-based medicine. They use an entirely non-conventional system of diagnosis and treatment. Osteopathic medicine in the US uses all the tools of conventional medicine - drugs, surgery, radiation plus Osteopathic manipulation.

I appreciate you agreeing that this information is necessary on Wikipedia. I'd like to respond to where it belongs. "Allopathic medicine is worldwide." I'd disagree with this statement. The term isn't really used with the same frequency out the US, or at least in the same way. This is similar to the "Osteopathy outside to the US" issue. Osteopathy outside the US is an entirely different phenomenon, hence the term "osteopathic medicine" to distinguish the two. The relationship between "Allopathic medicine" and "osteopathy" outside the US is entirely unlike within the US. For example, a search on the British Medical society webpage for "allopathic medicine" gives you no results. [42] While a similar search on American Medical Association's webpage gives hundreds. Likewise, British & Australian residencies don't refer to themselves as "allopathic" while US ones do, in limited contexts, almost always involving distinctions from osteopathic programs. There's no such thing as a "allopathic medicine program" let alone a "combined osteo/allo" program, anywhere outside the US, they don't exist. The term is very US specific, at least a certain facet of it is. I don't find any of this satisfying in the least, but this is the situation as it now stands and I think we should present it. If someone wants to add a section called "allopathic medicine outside the US", I think that would be great.OsteopathicFreak 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that the term allopathic is unique to the US. I think it is fair to say that medicine practiced overseas is comparable to (if not the same as) allopathic medicine. That's all that I meant by "allopathic medicine is worldwide." I am not too familiar with osteopathy outside of the US, but could you say for US medicine: "osteopathy + conventional medicine = osteopathic medicine" and "conventional medicine = allopathic medicine"? --Scott Alter 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got it. The issue is that the term means these very specific things in the US, and is used all this time, but only in certain contexts. If the term is used only in these contexts in the US, why not say that? Giving numerous examples of those contextualized usages. This is an issue which somewhat defies explanation, since everyone disagrees on what it means, as a stand alone term. Again, some people even find it offensive. Yet, when used in a specific, technical context, everyone knows exactly to what you are referring.OsteopathicFreak 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I just had another idea of how to handle allopathic/osteopathic medicine. Since articles on either topic always relate to the other topic, why not just have one article about both. Neither an article on allopathic or osteopathic medicine can exist without heavily writing about the comparison with the other. What if this article were renamed to Medicine in the United States? The content that OsteopathicFreak added today would be perfect for that topic. All that would be needed is some content taken from the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and/or Osteopathy articles for the intro and history sections. Merging allopathic and osteopathic medicine in to one article would go along with the current theme on Wikipedia of combining the two together (as seen in List of medical schools in the United States and Medical school in the United States). --Scott Alter 22:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving this to "Medicine in the United States" is an interesting idea. I think people would strongly object to the use of the term allopathic in any general discussion of US medicine. You could say that it would be misleading, as it would exaggerate the controversy, making it sound like a problem at center stage of Medicine in the US, which it's not. For most physicians, the day they finish their residency they forget all about this osteopathic/allopathic business. However, I think it would be appropriate to merging much of this information into Medical education in the United States, where it is very relevant.OsteopathicFreak 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

However, I really think the term deserves it own page. Outside of medicine, who has ever even heard of "allopathic medicine" - its a curiosity, and deserves to be fleshed out for its own sake, not only in some other discussion.OsteopathicFreak 23:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, about your equation. Osteopathy + convention medicine = Osteopathic medicine. This is not exactly correct. More like, Osteopathic manipulative therapy + conventional medicine = Osteopathic medicine. Also, Osteopathy - osteopathic manipulative medicine = a system of diagnosis not taught or utilized by US osteopathic physicians or taught at US osteopathic medical school, but still widely promoted by non-US Osteopaths. In other words, Osteopathic medicine in the US has rejected a great deal of what classic osteopaths are still trained in at Osteopathy schools outside of the US. They reject it because "it is not congruous with modern medicine." Osteopaths outside the US are not trying to be congruous with conventional medicine. I'm oversimplifying, but trying to give some idea of the issues involved. Osteopaths outside of the US have more in common with US Chiropractors than US Osteopathic physicians, though chiropractors are largely concerns with the vertebral column whereas Osteopaths focus on other musculoskeletal structures as well, as well as practicing a form of Energy medicine. OsteopathicFreak 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I want you to know that, in general, in the few articles where I disagree with your wordings, it's because I think you overstate the degree of osteopathic medicine / allopathic medicine controversy. The term allopathic itself has intensely far-reaching meanings that pre-date the modern day osteo/allo domination of medicine. I know that, due to your osteo affiliations, the osteo/allo is a major component of this for you, and I want to validate that. However, we can't write the article that way because that's a modern footnote, and the bulk of the interesting history of this term is not dedicated to that distinction. The article is tilting towards becoming a list of dictionary definitions, and in future weeks I plan on changing this. In any edit I make, I'll nevertheless be sure to highlight the osteo/allo usage. Antelan ^talk 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Different contexts in which the term Allopathic is used

My expertise is very limited, but I do feel very familiar with the specific ways this term is used to differentiate Osteo and allo med. As I said previously, I did not overhaul the history section, because I have little expertise in that arena. I think it would be very appropriate to move the History section up, expand it, to highlight it more. It needs some lovin' too.OsteopathicFreak 02:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Goldberg reference in the etymology section, will you quote (within the reference) what the book says precisely, so that those of us who don't have access to it can see it? This translation from the Greek is mediocre at best, and I'd like to see precisely what the source actually says. Thanks much. Antelan ^talk 02:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediocre? My undergraduate major was Ancient Greek. Allo means other.[43] Pathos is the verb "to suffer."[44]

OsteopathicFreak 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) The Goldberg reference is a 2 page article on Allopathic medicine. OsteopathicFreak 03:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the strict interpretations of the roots, but as you know, "allopath-" is not Ancient Greek. Keep in mind that this was a "back-translation" of a "concept" into the Greek language, not a truly Greek word. Hence, my criticism of the the translation from the Greek hinges upon the fact that the meaning, as derived from pure Greek, is not the same as the meaning that Hahnemann used. At any rate, would you quote the sentence from the reference? Antelan ^talk 03:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A 2-page article it may be, but without seeing the text, it's very difficult to know if this sentence correctly summarizes two pages worth of text. Antelan ^talk 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Goldberg, "other suffering" is the meaning Hahnemann intended, as per the the greek words "allo" meaning other and "pathos" meaning suffering. Goldberg says that Hahnemann used the term to highlight the terrible side effects caused by the drugs allopathic doctors of the day were using. Goldberg goes on to say that adverse side effects are a still major point of criticism against allopathic medicine by alternative medical practitioners today, as it was in Hahnemann's time. Other sources says Hahnemann also called it "heteropathy" and "entianopathy". Both of these terms seem to have something to do with this business of "opposing the suffering" versus homeopathy - "similar to the suffering." These latter two terms didn't carry the negative connotation of "allopathy." One additional point . . . I don't know if Hahnemann ever used the term "allopathic medicine" which is the title of this article. Perhaps its time for a split?OsteopathicFreak 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He, at the very least, refers to "allopathic physicians" http://www.homeoint.org/books4/bradford/chapter47.htm . I don't see the grounds for a split, but maybe I'm missing something. Antelan ^talk 03:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, does the source you've cited back the statement that the etymology had to do with adverse side-effects? This is the portion of the translation that I think doesn't fit, since Hahnemann's disciples applied the term much more broadly. Antelan ^talk 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your DO-focus (from OED): "‘The curing of a diseased action by the inducing of another of a different kind, yet not necessarily diseased.’ Syd. Soc. Lex. A term applied by hom{oe}opathists to the ordinary or traditional medical practice, and to a certain extent in common use to distinguish it from HOM{oe}OPATHY." Antelan ^talk 04:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Antelan,

1. Are not these definitions not well represented by at least one the groups in the Definitions section?
2. This isn't a dicitonary.
3. I've tried to make the point that the British usage and American usage of the term differ significantly. The British Medical Society does not use the term to describe anything about itself. The AMA does, frequently, as does every other body governing allopathic medicine in the US, to describe themselves. Is the AMA, and all these other organizations, trying to distinguish allopathic medicine from homeopathy? Is it 'just a coincidence' that the word only appears in discussions where a distinction with Osteopathic medicine is needed?
4. I said all over the page that using it in this way is "controversial" and questioned by many, as a nod to your concerns.
5. I am really frustrated. You say "This isn't a battle." Yet when I make edits, you respond with "we can't do it this way" and "I'm going to be making major changes to this." I don't understand why you question these facts. I've made statements that are well-sourced, yet they still get shot down by you. I really feel like you are hyper-criticizing every edit I've made. The term allopathic medicine is used widely, regularly, outside of Homeopathy, by major, US medical institutions. It is used in the manner in which I'm trying to describe, to differentiate some minor points of Allopathic training from Osteopathic training. Points which at one time were not so minor, but have changed significantly in recent years. I've given dozens of examples of this usage. It's frustrating that you don't acknowledge that. It's frustrating that you are insisting on one definition when the article already lists all of them, in an organized fashion that at least attempt to clarify a confusing situation, and attempts to do it fairly. Hahnemann died 164 years ago. Are we to stop discussing the history of medicine at 1843? Why can't we talk about both the historical and modern usages? US and British?

OsteopathicFreak 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this just be "A discussion of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the USA"?

OsteopathicFreak, you seem to be rewriting this article as an allopathic/osteopathic expose, which is not true to the origins and history of this word. The osteo/allo perhaps deserves its own article, but within this article it deserves no more than a 4 sentence paragraph to clear up any confusion. Antelan ^talk 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What is allopathic medicine? That what this article is about. This article is not only about the origins and history of this word. Why must any other information besides its origins and history be excluded. We can have a 250 page discussion of the origins and history of the word. I have no problem with that. But there must also be a discussion of allopathic medicine, as it stands now, in the U. S., in the U. K. and everywhere else that allopathic medicine is taught and practiced. OsteopathicFreak 17:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the osteo/allo discussion that you've added to this article goes far beyond what is necessary and sufficient for this article. We're running the risk now of overwhelming this article with pages of material of little importance that could be concisely explained in a paragraph. Antelan 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion. I think that the entire article goes "far beyond" what is "necessary" in discussing the origins the term. I think the article is completely "overwhelmed" by the implication that allopathic medicine is some expletive used by homeopaths. Its not. It has other uses, much more common. And I've sourced that. The Hanehman story is way over emphasized, IMO. The emphasis on Hanehman is editorializing, in an attempt to discredit the term. To pretend like allopathic medicine does really exist or something.OsteopathicFreak 18:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So it's your opinion against mine regarding both content and length. Sounds like a time for a request for comment on this article since I'm not sure we're going anywhere helpful right now. Antelan ^talk 18:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop

1. The attribution of several claims to pages on hopkinsmedicine.org that have no avowed author is inappropriate. I have removed these twice, and twice you have added them back in. I encourage you to remove them yourself.
2. On the Osteopathic medicine article, there was a section discussing MCAT scores. They are much lower for admitted osteopathic students than for admitted allopathic students. Nevertheless, we ended up removing the comparison from that page, since it was inappropriate for that page. Likewise, your critical comparisons of allo vs osteo are inappropriate to this page. Antelan ^talk 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Johns Hopkins Medicine Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine is a well-respected, reputable source for information. The quotes give a reasonably representative example of one criticism of allopathic medicine. The citation is very clear. I see no reason why it should be removed. Please don't delete it again.

As I have mentioned before, it is not attributable as a stance of an individual or of the organization in general. From WP:ATT "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." We have no idea what the publication process for this blurb was, nor who the author was. Finally, I am confident that were I to go speak with the director of the center, he would object to your labeling of this as a "criticism". This is inappropriate, and should be removed. Antelan ^talk 21:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem very interested in giving lengthy space to Haneman's critique of allopathic medicine. Why not other critiques? Perhaps ones that were published less that 150 years ago? I think I gave numerous examples of how the two are comparable and complementary.OsteopathicFreak 20:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Appeasement is a term that came into popularity as a criticism during World War II. The wikipedia article on the subject focuses heavily on this. Allopathic medicine is a term that came into usage due to Hahnemann and the homeopathic movement. The history section is lengthy because it describes the history of the term. It's not about Hahnemann's critiques, except insofar as they are the origin of the term. The incidental critiques that you continue to find don't help this article. Focus and neutrality are what this article used to have, and now lacks. Strikingly, despite its continued popularity and usage, the appeasement article doesn't suffer from the same problems that have been introduced into the allopathic medicine article. Antelan ^talk 21:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in history

OsteopathicFreak, I noticed that you tossed up an NPOV flag on the history section, but you haven't explained why you did so on the talk page.Antelan ^talk 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An allopathic school

Is there some new style guide where every time we reference any school of medicine we have to say (an allopathic school) after the name? Is this good style? Is it an indicator that what is going to be said is contentious? Antelan ^talk 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. This an article about allopathic medicine. It seems relevant to use the term on this page.
2. I only added those descriptors in the spirit of fairness and disclosure. It seems relevant that the information is coming from an allopathic organization, i.e. not an osteopathic or homeopathic one.
3. You seem to deeply object to any use of this term. I respect that. Clearly there are authors that agree with you. I'm all for representing that point of view more fully on this page, balanced with other points of view, e.g. those that use the term freely.
4. I think everyone agrees, the term allopathic is often associated with critiques of conventional medicine. In other words, an article about allopathic medicine will likely have a lot of criticism in it.
5. In comparisons with osteopathic medicine, the term usually seems to be non-pejorative. That usage deserves some airtime too.
6. We're not talking about fringe theories and paranormal phenomenon. This is all pretty common place. Hence the regular usage of the term by John Hopkins, Harvard, the AMA and the US Dept of Health - not exactly minor voices in American medicine.

OsteopathicFreak 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you have made incorrect assumptions about my opinions of the usage of this term. Second, my personal preferences are irrelevant. Third, your parentheticals about "an allopathic school" are highly irregular. I am unaware of any similar approach taken on any page in Wikipedia. Antelan ^talk 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OsteopathicFreak

Hi guys. OK - so we disagree. Perhaps we can work it, or at least move beyond the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality of this discussion.

I want to better understand what we disagree about. Here's my points, feel free to state your objection to each one.

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term used by many today, in a non-pejorative manner. Including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

OK - so that's where I'm at. What part of this do you not agree with. It seems like maybe we agree on 1-4, and then we have some major rift around 5 and beyond. At what point am I losing you? Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 19:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You lose me at #2. It's a term rarely used today, and nearly always to create a distinction between mainstream medicine and something else that wants to put itself on an equal footing with it. That is, it seeks to lower standard medical practice to just another "denomination" of medicine on equal footing with the minority view doing the distinquishing. You seem to want to overemphasize the importance of the fact that, say, the AMA uses a term (in a fairly limited way). This always reminds me of Miracle on 34th Street", where someone is "proved" to be Santa Claus because the post office delivers Santa's mail to him. This page, by the way, is not the place for this discussion, which should be held on the talk pages of the respective articles. - Nunh-huh 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - I don't have a problem giving full representation of this point of view on the allopathic medicine page. I just ask that other definitions of the term be represented. Do we agree that the OED, and other authoritative sources, list definitions other than the one you are giving?Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Any other definition given by any quoted dictionary, included the OED, are subordinate or secondary. Yet you seek to promote the definitions to equal status with the primary definition. To do that is to misrepresent matters. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:Nunh-huh by Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK User:Nunh-huh - let's try this. How far do you get?

1. Homeopaths created the term "allopath" and "allopathic" to slam their opponents.
2. "Allopathic" is a term rarely used today, in a non-pejorative manner, and nearly always to create a distinction between mainstream medicine and something else. Examples include including US gov, AMA, AMSA, etc.
3. There are objections to this usage. There are claims that it is an incorrect usage.
4. Conventional medicine, known by some as "allopathic medicine", has a history of its own that includes slamming its opponents.
5. The allopathic and osteopathic branches of medicine (the big two of US conventional med) have a history of hostility towards one another.
6. Over time the once stark differences between these branches have blended.
7. Differences remain.
8. Very recently and with lots of politicking, important U. S. medical organization have taken a "separate, but equal" stance on the issue.

Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is confusing and misleading. A vocal minority keeps pushing a confusing agenda. When the AMA refers to allopathic medicine, they are NOT trying to contrast it with homeopathy. This article is irresponsible and misleading. Donaldal 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine#Allopathic medicine in the United States

The subsection Allopathic medicine#Allopathic medicine in the United States should be deleted. Some contents are more appropriate for Differences between allopathic and osteopathic medicine, some already discussed in other articles (for example Allopathic residency training and Comparison_of_allopathic_and_osteopathic_medicine#Residency_Training are very similar) and some sources do not pass WP:MEDRS.--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 22:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete. This is the most reliably sourced section of the entire article. Some points are sourced multiple times. This is a misunderstood, confusing topic that needs to be explained, thoroughly. Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is well sourced, but already covered in articles more specifically relevant to the subject at hand. This section should be reduced to a stub with links to the pertinent, full-fledged articles. Antelan ^talk 18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic_medicine#Historical_origins

This section is unsourced. The tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The diction editorializes the topic. Its placement at the head of the article exaggerates the importance of a controversy from the 1830's, a the expense of misleading the reader into believing the term is not used in other contexts. It is used, widely, by everyone from the US government to the American Medical Association to the American Medical Student Association. Some people don't like it, that's an opinion, not a fact.Osteopathic!Freak ^talk 22:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

History is generally placed at the beginning of articles. Oh wow, I just noticed the WP:POINT you're making with the fact tags. That's highly disruptive. Antelan ^talk 05:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. At the beginning it is. What's a fact tag? Sorry, I don't know all the terms. WP:POINT, how does that apply? OsteopathicFreak ^{T  ?} 06:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact tag is the {{fact}} tag that you placed after every sentence in the history section. Antelan ^talk 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I just put the tags on the statements that seemed both questionable and unsourced. Does anyone have a source to cite? OsteopathicFreak ^{T  ?} 19:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

latest revert

The second half of the article was removed in order to avoid deletion of the article altogether. There was essentially total consensus that it was irrelevant and POV to the extent that the article could not stand with it in. I'm reverting to the version passed at AfD. My suggestion is that if the 2nd part of the content is desired, that an attempt be made to put it into a new article--it was simply not a discussion of allopathic medicine but a content fork of the articles on osteopathic medicine. DGG (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• This edit History by OsteopathicFreak, accidently removed references to replace it with unreferenced content please be more careful in your edits. Jeepday (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• A longer article is not necessarily a better article. Quality, not quantity - and quality implies references. >Radiant< 10:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If we're aiming for a definition of quality, I'd say that quality also implies WP:NPOV and WP:V. DGG prevented this article from being deleted by removing a version that, at times, read like a polemic. Antelan ^talk 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a link to the AfD discussion that DGG is referring to? That might help inform the current discussion. 206.221.128.1 17:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look back under the article history you'll find a recent version that links to the AfD. Antelan ^talk 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Question? I really have major POV issues with the article. The words "sometimes" and "informally" in reference to AMA and NRMP using the term are utterly OR. Many organizations use the term, this is a fact. Why are people so opposed to simply stating that? ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

From the examples you've given, it sounds like you have issues with apparent OR in the article, not with the POV of the article. Strikingly, you are removing material that does a nice job of summarizing the differences between dictionary accounts of the word. The previous version of the article discussed the different ways in which the term was defined. The version that you prefer removes the synthesis, leaving the reader with a list of dictionary definitions. This is becoming a non-encyclopedic entry. Antelan ^talk 18:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Not only is this article is heavily biased, it fails to discuss the topic. 206.221.128.1 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is biased, miseading, and confusing. It fails to represent usage of the term by major allopathic bodies (AMA, etc) and overstates an interesting but non-current historical meaning. The history of the term, though interesting, should not be the focus of the article. Numerous citations of use by all major US allopathic institutions have been supplied.Donaldal 05:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here are some references listed above

American Medical Student Association: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

American Medical Association: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

New England Journal of Medicine: [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]

US Department of Health and Human Services: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]

Center for Disease Control (CDC): [67] [68] [69]

Johns Hopkins: [70] [71]

Harvard Medical School: [72]

UCSF: [73] [74]

Cleveland Clinic: [75]

Columbia Med: [76] [77]

Yale Med: [78]

World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [79] [80] [81]

Others: [82] [83]Donaldal 05:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The usage of this term currently is very well established. Why the refusal to acknowledge that here? The article is a POV nightmare, committed to trashing homeopathic medicine, while the current usage of the term has nothing to do with homeopathy. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the term "allopath" is not applied to you, it is easy to dismiss its pejorative meaning, isn't it? Such is the case with most terms that are used to discriminate against groups. It's just like any epithet that targets people by color, SES, or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the current way that we distinguish between osteopathic and orthodox medicine is with the term "allopathic". To emphasize the extent to which osteopathic medicine is actually a part of the orthodoxy, orthodox medicine doesn't monopolize that label for itself but instead it uses, as infrequently as possible, the "allopathic" label. Were it not for the goal of distinguishing between orthodox and osteopathic medicine when necessary, the term "allopathic medicine" would be in disuse. However you slice things, though, the origin of this term is far more important than the "disambiguation" purpose that it serves in the modern day, which could be summarized in a sentence. Antelan ^talk 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's just like any epithet that targets people by color, SES, or sexual orientation." Are you kidding? The AMA, ACGME etc. use the term liberally. It is not any thing of the sort. Your statement is exactly why this article is irresponbsible and silly.Donaldal 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't suggested that I'm wrong, you've just gone on an ad hom binge. Content, not contributor. Antelan ^talk 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Why does the tone of this conversation have to get so intense so quickly? What is this about? ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 01:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

As I've noted many times, it is true that orthodox medical organizations such as the AMA use the term to describe themselves, but as a rule they do so only to distinguish themselves from osteopathic medicine. That type of usage requires about one sentence to explain. The rest of the article ought to explain the historical origins and usage of the term. Let's not fall into the WP:Recentism trap. ("Even when they are still significiant, or have grown in significiance, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the defining traits"). The fact that the term is currently used for disambiguation is not its defining trait, nor should it be a major focus of this article. Antelan ^talk 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"Were it not for the goal of distinguishing between orthodox and osteopathic medicine when necessary, the term "allopathic medicine" would be in disuse." I'd like to emphasize the were it not clause here. I completely agree with you. But what I don't understand is that you don't acknowledge this "goal" comes up a lot. There are two, more or less equal branches of "conventional" medicine in the US, and occasionally one needs to contradistinct between the two. And it is completely not pejorative, hence major organizations using it with regular frequency.

You have made your point that there are objection to the use of the term. That should and is noted. However, the term is used all the time. And you can't just explain it away in one sentence.

I'm really pleading here that we can see eye to eye on this. I fully appreciate that you object to the use of this term, and that you find it insulting, as do others. However, for many people, the term is useful and commonly used. I don't understand how we can do such a thorough treatment of the history of the term, and ignore or utterly under emphasize and other POV on this term - that "allopathic physican, student, school, etc." is commonly used by AMA, AOA, AMSA, ACGME, NRMP, etc, etc.

Wikipedia has articles on other pejorative terms too, which are willing to discuss the full range of usages of a term. See also: bitch nigger asshole wetback

This article so heavily relies on the "Misuse of the Term "Allopathy" article. Which is (to use your phrase) a POV nightmare. It was written in 1996. It is one-sided. There are other points of view out there.^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 01:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is used "all the time" when ostoepathic and orthodox medicine have to be distinguished, which is fewer than 20 times on the AMA website. I'm not kidding when I say that the AMA only uses the term for that purpose. I don't disagree at all that osteo and allo are essentially the same entity; indeed, you'll find sources that consider osteopathic medicine to be a branch of allopathic medicine, which, post-Flexner, is essentially tautological. You choose to use my turn of phrase to describe an entirely different source; while your deference to my English verbiage is appreciated, it cannot be said that both targets of the term "nightmare" are equally antithetical to orthodox medicine. The link that I removed was, without question, a nightmare; I don't actually know what you mean when you say "Misuse of the Term "Allopathy" article". Best, Antelan ^talk 06:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, since by parallelism you apparently agree that this term is equivalent to the epithets that you cited above, and since the Wiki articles about those epithets identify them as such within the intro, I can only surmise that you agree that this term should be identified as pejorative within the intro to this article. Antelan ^talk 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can source that the term allopathic is as offensive as those terms, then absolutely I think it should be mentioned in the intro. In my experience, its not. If there's a dictionary that list the term as a vulgarity, then that should be mentioned. My point in citing those terms was simply to point out that Wikipedia does discuss terms that are offensive to some, often at length.

When I said "Misuse of the term" article, I was referring to the Jarvis article listed under external links with that title. Sorry for any confusion. Again, I think this this link has POV issues. I point it out since I've noticed that you are very quick to remove "POV nightmares" when the POV is coming from one side of the aisle, while the other POV is deemed acceptable.

You may say that the term allopathic medicine only occurs 20 times on the AMA website. But, how many times does the phrase "orthodox medicine" appear on the AMA website? Or AMSA's? Or NRMP? Or ACGME? Or JAMA? Or NEJM? This article cannot ignore the fact that the phrase is used, by all these organization and publications.

I don't have any problem with your sources that osteopathic is essentially a branch of allopathic. I largely agree. Though I think its noteworthy that many disagree with both of us. Likewise, I find it interesting that it wasn't always so. That there has been a gradual merger over time. Let's not forget that only 20-30 years ago it was unacceptable to the AMA for an MD to refer someone to an acupuncturist, chiropractor or osteopath. A great deal has changed. If we don't discuss in the article the current situation, because of some adherence to recentism, then we ignore this noteworthy trend. For example, it is interesting that the term allopathic medicine does not appear in the previous editions of Harrison's or Cecil's. Yet it does appear in the latest versions. A trend?

I agree that the term seems to be currently used, more of less exclusively, in contexts where a distinction from osteopathic medicine is needed. This has been my point from day 1. This is how the term is used. This is what the term means. Yes, there is some interesting history to the term, but, come on, no one is referring to that history when they use it today. Best regards as well. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 12:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You say, "This is how the term is used. This is what the term means." We have to represent the term more fully than you're advocating for. You've identified one portion of the term's meaning, and one way in which it is used. However, you haven't exhausted its meanings, which this article about the subject is perfectly primed and perhaps duty-bound to do. Antelan ^talk 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your claims that I only remove POV nightmares when they come from one side of the aisle, I must disagree. I argued strongly on the osteopathic medicine page against prominently placing a description of the lower GPAs and test scores required, on average, to matriculate into DO schools. When I see POV problems, I do what I can to resolve them. I don't see the POV issues that you're talking about, but am not opposed to being educated. Antelan ^talk 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should do a full treatment of the terms meaning, all of them. I would agrue that the contra-distinction from Osteo med is the more important component of that meaning, but I fully aknowlege the neccessity of a fully developed history of the term in this article. So we agree on that as well. As for the content of any history section, we need to watch out for POV issues, and I feel the current history section has many. It has an editorial tone and is poorly sourced. I'm in agreement with all the information in that section, but I'd like to see it formalized, with better references. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

psudoetymology

etymology needs to be attested by reliable dictionaries. the use of the components of a word to 'deconstruct' the meaning is not etymology. DGG (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

can you suggest a different way to present the information from this source? i used etymology for lack of a more precise word. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 19:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A fine word gone bad

In the original, strictist sense, allopathy is a *mode of treatment* which seeks to reduce symptoms of disease by creating an opposing symptom in the body. This way of treating is not a school or field of medicine in itself. Historically, the word came to take on a secondary meaning such that 'allopath' came to describe *a type of practitioner* who used (or was perceived to use) allopathy as their primary mode of treatment. It was at this point that the term took on a pejoritive meaning to some. The most recent usage to distinguish 'conventional' or 'western' medicine from other systems (naturopathy, osteopathy, homeopathy amongst others) is unfortunate since 'regular medical doctors' do not exclusively use allopathic interventions. Still, the term is being used in this third sense to describe the dominant system of medicine used around the world. Too bad, because in its original sense it is actually a very useful word. So although you may find someone who calls themselves (or is called by others) a practitioner of 'Allopathic medicine', you will probably never find someone who actually uses allopathy as an exclusive mode of treatment. Likewise, I'd wager that all types of practitioners use allopathic modes of treatment to one extent or the other in their practices, so its use as an insult is equally regrettable. 206.47.252.66 02:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying sounds like it could be true (I wasn't aware of usage until Hahnemann, but if there is prior usage, I'm game to learn about it). If you can find a good source I'll substantially update this article (the source would preferably be online but I have access to a univ. library so I'll find it if you say it's good). Antelan ^talk 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice artwork

I really like the addition of the painting. It does a good job illustrating the history of the term. We need more primary source stuff like that.Donaldal 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the painting is an attractive work but I think that it is a terrible addition in terms of keeping the article unbiased. The piece seems little more than a characture of the evils of Allopathy and instantly skews peoples perceptions with dramatic skeletons bedecking the doctors on the left. I would like to see it removed and replaced with a more neutral illustration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentvincent (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Painting is illustrative. User:Hopping ^T 01:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge Allopathic into Allopathic Medicine. Antelan ^talk 01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic, not being a distinct subject, should be merged into this article. Antelan ^talk 05:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree; it should be merged. Axl 10:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Allopathic is an adjective that should be included in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. I don't think an encyclopedia is the proper place for the history of adjective usages, though the history of the term allopathic medicine would belong in its respective article. --Scott Alter 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've had a hard time even reaching any consensus on what the terms "allopathic" and "allopathic medicine" refer to. I think we need to establish some consensus, in at least one of the articles, before a merger can be properly discussed.User:Hopping ^T 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there does need to be discussion on the proper usage of the terms, which seems to have been ongoing for quite some time. Regarding this, there has only been one real issue bought up needing consensus - whether the term "allopathic" can or should be used to describe traditional/convention/M.D. medicine. Let's not argue this here. It is best suited to have one location for such discussion, and combining smaller articles might help condense this discussion. You mention having a consensus on this topic before considering a merger, but consensus probably should have been reached before the creation of an article at allopathic.

This specific discussion related to merger is strictly about whether there should be a standalone article called allopathic. Allopathic fails several criteria to warrant its own article, including Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives). The first specifically mentions that etymology should not be included in Wikipedia (but is suited for Wictionarty). The second states that articles should not be named as adjectives, but converted to the noun form. The noun form of allopathic, allopathy, is synonymous with allopathic medicine, which would support a merger. But based on failing these criteria alone, I'd say the article could even be put up for deletion. It actually would be a legitimate nomination, as allopathic could fall under the "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" reason for deletion. I doubt the content would be outright deleted, but the results probably would be "merge to allopathic medicine." Maybe the article needs to be nominated at AfD to get outside opinions. --Scott Alter 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Per those recommendations, I would list it there, but I think it would look untoward for me to be recommending a merger and a deletion at the same time. If someone were to recommend deletion, I would not be offended. The bulk of the relevant material is already present in the allopathic medicine article. Antelan ^talk 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Scott's analysis. In light of these Wikipedia policies, I support a merger of the two articles.User:Hopping ^T 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.